If you enjoy reading these exercises then please buy Crista’s book to support her work.
Style 22 – Passive Aggressive
- Every single procedure and function checks the sanity of its arguments and refuses to continue when the arguments are unreasonable, jumping out of the function.
- When calling out other functions, program functions only check for errors if they are in a position to react meaningfully.
- Error handling occurs at higher levels of function call chains, wherever it is meaningul to do so.
We have seen two contrasting approaches to handling exceptions recently:
- Constructivist style where we always provide fallback values to allow program to continue
- Tantrum style where we always throw exceptions to terminate program right away
Despite their different responses to exceptions, both styles share something in common – that they deal with exceptions at the callsite. Today’s style differs in this regard. Here, we’ll only consider the happy path and allow exceptions (that we can’t deal with meaningfully in the function) to escape and bubble up to a function that’s higher up in the call chain and CAN handle it in a meaningful way.
We’ll keep the solution to the same structure as the last two styles, but notice that we’re not explicitly handling file exceptions in extractWords and removeStopWords.
However, any escaped exceptions will be handled and logged by the top-level function.
If you come from a .Net or Java background, this is probably the style that you’ll most often encounter in the wild. If you’re an Erlang developer, this style perfectly embodies Erlang’s famous Let it Crash mantra!
However, you shouldn’t confuse the Passive Aggressive style with “controlling program flow using exceptions”, which points to a specific anti-pattern, like this example.
I generally prefer the Passive Aggressive style, although it doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive to the Constructivist and Tantrum styles. For example, you might leave exception handling to a function that’s higher up in the call chain, who then in turn return a fallback value for the whole chain.
As a side note, I also discovered a while back that there’s a non-trivial performance overhead associated with throwing (lots of) exceptions (another argument against using exceptions to control program flow) as the CLR needs to collect lots of runtime diagnostic information for each exception.
And finally, another often-missed observation about exceptions is that, they are really another form of GOTO.
You can find the source code for this exercise here.
I specialise in rapidly transitioning teams to serverless and building production-ready services on AWS.
Are you struggling with serverless or need guidance on best practices? Do you want someone to review your architecture and help you avoid costly mistakes down the line? Whatever the case, I’m here to help.
Check out my new course, Complete Guide to AWS Step Functions. In this course, we’ll cover everything you need to know to use AWS Step Functions service effectively. Including basic concepts, HTTP and event triggers, activities, callbacks, nested workflows, design patterns and best practices.
Here is a complete list of all my posts on serverless and AWS Lambda. In the meantime, here are a few of my most popular blog posts.
- Lambda optimization tip – enable HTTP keep-alive
- You are thinking about serverless costs all wrong
- Many faced threats to Serverless security
- We can do better than percentile latencies
- I’m afraid you’re thinking about AWS Lambda cold starts all wrong
- Yubl’s road to Serverless
- AWS Lambda – should you have few monolithic functions or many single-purposed functions?
- AWS Lambda – compare coldstart time with different languages, memory and code sizes
- Guys, we’re doing pagination wrong